New pictures at Gamespot

[Zatoichi]

Four new pictures at IGN:

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/800/80...g_3499092.html

A French knight charge - check out the Longbowmens' stake emplacements.

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/800/80...g_3499093.html

Turkish(?) cannons firing on a city.

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/800/80...g_3499094.html

Turkish(?) spearmen and halberdiers charging in close order.

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/800/80...g_3499095.html

Scotland v England - and not a kilt in sight.

Actually, the last picture reminded me of a Blackburn Rovers pitch invasion, but these are nice pictures!

Yes I know - they are eye candy, but hey, they're lovely eye candy!

Edit - oops, the thread title should be IGN, not Gamespot! D'oh!

[Lord Adherbal]

note the uber decorated knight on the extreme left in the first picture. Probably a general/family member.

I hope a cavalry charge like the one in the last picture isn't effective. In MTW the knights would just be stopped by their own infantry, but in RTW they passed through fairly easily which is rediculous. A charge like that should destroy or mess up your own infantry.

[spmetla]

I like the first picture for the most part.
I'm glad the banners aren't so big they detract from the general look and feel although they are rather rigid.

The guy on the left I assume is an Officer unit even though he seems overdone. The Horses look nice but the riders using swords against infantry with polearms is a bit stupid. I'll just assume that the charge already happened (there are dead horses on the ground) and that the lances have been "used up"

I'm not sure why arrows are being fired at somebodies expensive knights or infantry and I notice they have vapor trails or they're rocket propelled (maybe with a coneshaped warhead to defeat enemy armor )

I'm very happy though to see a castle built in a position that offers terrain that denies the enemy some approaches and slopes up to the citadel making a fight after the walls are breached even more favorable to the defender. I'm curious whether the towers will be able to be upgraded to have ballistas and catapults, and powder weapons again.

I understand also that artillery units are still very abstracted but I'd like to see more than one user of each gun and of course the surplus ammunition on wagons or on the ground if the artillery is immobile along with a powder magazine of a sort. I assume by the position of the gunner that no visual recoil is being implemented.

As for the turkish units I know too little to comment on uniforms and weaponry but they "look" good to me. The spearheads seem to be more like giant bodkin arrows though, doesn't work to good once you need to pull the spear back out. I notice though that the arrows in this picture don't have the "vapor trails" of the first picture.

And for the zoomed out picture, it is rather ridiculous to have cavalry charging the rear of their own infantry! Also for the late period armor they're wearing I'd expect them to also have longer lance (lances grew longer as pikes came about).
I glad to see that fog is back!

[TB666]

Good to see the cannons in action, I have been waiting for that .
Also the city is is firing upon looks awesome and the overall screens looks more darker and grittier.
Me like that

[screwtype]

Did anyone notice the mist in the last picture? Could it be they have listened to all the nostalgic comments about the excellent weather effects in Shogun?

I sure hope so. I hope weather has a bigger effect on combat than in the last few games too.

The citadel looks fantastic, but I wonder if it's a real 3D model or just a mock-up? The cannons looks good too - you can even see a cannonball in the air - but the cannoneers look a bit too clonelike in their body language to me - all just standing there like zombies with their hands by their sides. I'd like to see them a bit more randomized in their poses.

BTW I don't think cannoneers shoud be standing directly behind their cannons like that, should they? I mean, cannons obviously have a recoil. I can't help but think that if a cannoneer really straddled the rear of his cannon like that when firing, he could probably say goodbye to the family jewels...

[Lord Adherbal]

The citadel looks fantastic, but I wonder if it's a real 3D model or just a mock-up? The cannons looks good too - you can even see a cannonball in the air - but the cannoneers look a bit too clonelike in their body language to me - all just standing there like zombies with their hands by their sides. I'd like to see them a bit more randomized in their poses.

these kind of requests probably participated in making RTW so disappointing for me. We need good gameplay (read: tactical gameplay), not artillery soldiers with fancy animations. This "improved combat animations system" already causes me enough worries about the focus of this next TW game.

[screwtype]

In general I would agree adherbal, but when reviewing a screenshot there really isn't a whole lot else to do but comment on the graphic, is there?

[Lord Adherbal]

no, but I remember all of us commenting how the soldiers and horses moving in syncronization looked stupid. And it seems CA picked that up and changed it. So I don't like people commenting on little details that have nothing to do with gameplay and probably take quite a while to fix. I rather have ppl commenting on possible gameplay problems the screenshots reveil, such as that cavalry charge through friendly infantry.

[anti_strunt]

no, but I remember all of us commenting how the soldiers and horses moving in syncronization looked stupid. And it seems CA picked that up and changed it. So I don't like people commenting on little details that have nothing to do with gameplay and probably take quite a while to fix. I rather have ppl commenting on possible gameplay problems the screenshots reveil, such as that cavalry charge through friendly infantry.

Well, if both the charge and the infantry are proper disordered by it, I don't see a problem with it...

[Lord Adherbal]

neither do I, but that's not the way it worked in RTW. There was no combat penalty for disorganised mobs of units like there was in MTW

[screwtype]

no, but I remember all of us commenting how the soldiers and horses moving in syncronization looked stupid. And it seems CA picked that up and changed it. So I don't like people commenting on little details that have nothing to do with gameplay and probably take quite a while to fix. I rather have ppl commenting on possible gameplay problems the screenshots reveil, such as that cavalry charge through friendly infantry.

Sorry, I just don't think it works that way.

CA have an art department for the graphics and an AI department for the AI. It's not as though they are going to pull the AI programmers off the job to go and do some extra work in the art department, it's not their field of expertise.

Rather, it's a matter of the art department having a given time and given budget to create a given number of effects, and it's a matter of deciding which effects get put in and which get left out. Same with the AI dept. So I don't believe it makes a lick of difference to the eventual standard of the one to make a request of the other. That's not how things are organized.

Apart from which, it's not my fault that CA decided to make graphics a priority, that was their decision, based on their belief about what sells. I think you're just kidding yourself if you think their emphasis on graphics has anything to do with what I or anyone else in the community has requested, because on the contrary it's clear that with RTW they largely ignored our requests for better gameplay in preference for better graphics.

It's CA who decided they wanted to put the big biccies into graphics, if you don't like it I suggest you take it up with them and quit trying to blame end users like me for a strategic decision we didn't ask for, had nothing to do with, and in the final analysis can only choose to either accept and adjust ourselves to, or just continue to moan about even though it's clearly not about to change.

[Incongruous]

Just a mounted version of the armoured swordsman with the retarded armour (no back plate?)

[Duke John]

They still look like clone armies to me. During a battle I think you will hardly notice the biggest selling point of M2TW.

[screwtype]

They still look like clone armies to me. During a battle I think you will hardly notice the biggest selling point of M2TW.

Hard to tell until we actually get our hands on it. But by and large I'm impressed by the screenshots so far and I'm optimistic that it will look quite a bit better and therefore be more immersive.

[Quietus]

There's also an new accompanying IGN Bob Smith interview:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/699/699515p1.html

IGNPC: Can castles and smaller towns be built away from cities to provide extra defense and garrisons?

Bob Smith: We haven't made a final decision on this as yet. Although the idea sounds cool, there is a danger that it could introduce too many repetitive sieges of small garrisons.

And there's also a mention of a new recruitment system (but was not elaborated).

[Kraxis]

Ok, I noticed something.

Everybody, or something close to that, can agree that the 'skirt' in the unit preview is a bit odd. Now I have found an explaination.
Notice that all the knight have it, and with the guys that have a full coat (back and front) it seems logical. The belt just holds on to the coat that falls far down.

But the changes within the unit are apparently only possible to the head and torso (arms perhaps). Thus the skirt remains for those that should really not have one.

[Duke John]

Then the modeller made a mistake since it doesn't appear to be needed. Look at this screenshot: http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/arti...1012823214.jpg
Notice the guys at the bottom. Some are wearing a coloured shirt that goes down beyond the belt, some are wearing a brown shirt and it does not conflict.

In that screenshot you can also see how different soldiers can be. It seems that arms, legs, torso and head all have different bits. I hope that a text file is used to avoid mismatches.

[Kraxis]

Thats true... Hmmm... Then the only logical explaination I can find is that there must be a difference in the models.
That as well could be considered logical as some have fairly long tunics, while others have split equipment that isn't the same on the chest as over the loins. Thus for some the split would be more prudent than for others...

But in any case this seems quit... well, bad.

[screwtype]

There's also an new accompanying IGN Bob Smith interview:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/699/699515p1.html

Oh thanks for the heads up Quietus, I didn't even think to look.

A couple of things I liked the sounds of - "environmental defences" around the castles to make sieges more difficult (does this mean moats?) and more than one level of city defences to fight through. It sounds like castle battles could be a lot more complex and interesting than in RTW.

What I didn't like was the final paragraph:

Medieval 2's battles are the most spectacular and brutal we've ever created and we'll be looking to show them off at E3. The new battle engine is a big jump from Rome: Total War and features like the new advanced combat animation and the introduction of individuality to troops combine to create battles that are far more realistic and immersive than those featured in previous Total War games.

I'd much rather he was talking about a battle engine that is "more realistic and immersive" because it's smarter than it used to be rather than merely better looking. One can only hope I guess.

[Trajanus]

In the last screenie, between Scots and English. Is that a Scottish phalanx I see in the top left?

Seems a little bit out of date...

[Duke John]

The Scots did employ pikemen. Watch CA's reference; Braveheart.

[anti_strunt]

The Scots did employ pikemen. Watch CA's reference; Braveheart.

Regardless of that travesty, the schiltron was a cornerstone of Scottish battlefield tactics.